See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

See accompanying notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited)

(Thousands of dollars, except per unit)

AmeriGas Partners, L.P. (“AmeriGas Partners”) is a publicly traded limited partnership that conducts a national propane distribution business through its principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. (“AmeriGas OLP”) and through AmeriGas OLP’s principal operating subsidiary Heritage Operating, L.P. (“HOLP”). AmeriGas OLP and HOLP are collectively referred to herein as the “Operating Partnerships.” AmeriGas Partners, AmeriGas OLP and HOLP are Delaware limited partnerships. AmeriGas Partners, the Operating Partnerships and all of their subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as the “Partnership” or “we.” The Operating Partnerships are engaged in the distribution of propane and related equipment and supplies. The Operating Partnerships comprise the largest retail propane distribution business in the United States serving residential, commercial, industrial, motor fuel and agricultural customers in all 50 states.

At March 31, 2013 , AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (the “General Partner”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of UGI Corporation (“UGI”), held a 1% general partner interest in AmeriGas Partners and a 1.01% general partner interest in AmeriGas OLP. The General Partner and its wholly owned subsidiary Petrolane Incorporated (“Petrolane,” a predecessor company of the Partnership) also owned 23,756,882 AmeriGas Partners Common Units (“Common Units”). The remaining Common Units outstanding comprise 39,492,661 publicly held Common Units and 29,567,362 Common Units held by a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (“ETP”) as a result of the January 12, 2012, acquisition of substantially all of ETP’s propane operations (“Heritage Propane”) (see Note 4). The Common Units represent limited partner interests in AmeriGas Partners. AmeriGas Partners holds a 98.99% limited partner interest in AmeriGas OLP.

AmeriGas Partners and the Operating Partnerships have no employees. Our operations are conducted by employees of the General Partner. The General Partner provides management and administrative services to Heritage Operating GP, LLC (“HOLP GP”), the general partner of HOLP, under a management services agreement.

The General Partner is reimbursed monthly for all direct and indirect expenses it incurs on our behalf (see Note 6).

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of AmeriGas Partners and its majority-owned subsidiaries principally comprising the Operating Partnerships. We eliminate all significant intercompany accounts and transactions when we consolidate. We account for the General Partner’s 1.01% interest in AmeriGas OLP as noncontrolling interest in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

AmeriGas Finance Corp., AP Eagle Finance Corp. and AmeriGas Finance LLC are 100% -owned finance subsidiaries of AmeriGas Partners. Their sole purpose is to serve as issuers or co-obligors for debt securities issued or guaranteed by AmeriGas Partners. The 6.75% and 7.00% Senior Notes are fully and unconditionally guaranteed on a senior secured basis by AmeriGas Partners.

 

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited and have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). They include all adjustments which we consider necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim periods presented. Such adjustments consisted only of normal recurring items unless otherwise disclosed. The September 30, 2012 , condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements but does not include all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and related notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2012 (“Partnership’s 2012 Annual Financial Statements and Notes”). Weather significantly impacts demand for propane and profitability because many customers use propane for heating purposes. Due to the seasonal nature of the Partnership’s propane business, the results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for a full year.

Allocation of Net Income Attributable to AmeriGas Partners. Net income attributable to AmeriGas Partners, L.P. for partners’ capital and statement of operations presentation purposes is allocated to the General Partner and the limited partners in accordance with their respective ownership percentages after giving effect to amounts distributed to the General Partner in excess of its 1% general partner interest in AmeriGas Partners based on its incentive distribution rights (“IDRs”) under

the Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of AmeriGas Partners, as amended (“Partnership Agreement”).

Net Income Per Unit. Income per limited partner unit is computed in accordance with GAAP regarding the application of the two-class method for determining income per unit for master limited partnerships (“MLPs”) when IDRs are present. The two-class method requires that income per limited partner unit be calculated as if all earnings for the period were distributed and requires a separate calculation for each quarter and year-to-date period. In periods when our net income attributable to AmeriGas Partners exceeds our Available Cash, as defined in the Partnership Agreement, and is above certain levels, the calculation according to the two-class method results in an increased allocation of undistributed earnings to the General Partner. Generally, in periods when our Available Cash in respect of the quarter or year-to-date periods exceeds our net income (loss) attributable to AmeriGas Partners, the calculation according to the two-class method results in an allocation of earnings to the General Partner greater than its relative ownership interest in the Partnership (or in the case of a net loss attributable to AmeriGas Partners, an allocation of such net loss to the Common Unitholders greater than their relative ownership interest in the Partnership).

 

The following table sets forth the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted income per limited partner unit computations:

 

Theoretical distributions of net income attributable to AmeriGas Partners, L.P. in accordance with the two-class method for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 , resulted in an increased allocation of net income attributable to AmeriGas Partners, L.P. to the General Partner in the computation of income per limited partner unit which had the effect of decreasing earnings per limited partner unit by $0.66 and $0.30 , respectively. Theoretical distributions of net income attributable to AmeriGas Partners, L.P. in accordance with the two-class method for the six months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 , resulted in an increased allocation of net income attributable to AmeriGas Partners, L.P. to the General Partner in the computation of income per limited partner unit which had the effect of decreasing earnings per limited partner unit by $0.72 and $0.29 , respectively.

Potentially dilutive Common Units included in the diluted limited partner units outstanding computation reflect the effects of restricted Common Unit awards granted under the General Partner’s incentive compensation plans.

Comprehensive Income . Comprehensive income comprises net income and other comprehensive income (loss). Other comprehensive income (loss) principally results from gains and losses on derivative instruments qualifying as cash flow hedges, net of reclassifications to net income.

Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and costs. These estimates are based on management’s knowledge of current events, historical experience and various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, actual results may be different from these estimates and assumptions.

3.      Accounting Changes

New Accounting Standards Not Yet Adopted

Disclosures about Reclassifications Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income . In February 2013 , the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued new accounting guidance regarding disclosures for items reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI). The new disclosure guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2012. The new disclosures are to be applied prospectively, and early adoption is permitted. We expect to adopt the new guidance in Fiscal 2014. We are currently evaluating the impact of the new guidance on our future disclosures.

Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. In December 2011, the FASB issued new accounting guidance regarding disclosures about offsetting assets and liabilities. The new guidance, as amended, requires an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. The amendments will enhance disclosures by requiring improved information about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either (1) offset in accordance with other GAAP or (2) subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset in the balance sheet. The new guidance is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013 (Fiscal 2014), and interim periods within those annual periods. We are currently evaluating the impact of the new guidance on our future disclosures.

On January 12, 2012, AmeriGas Partners completed the acquisition of Heritage Propane from ETP for total consideration of $2,604,827 , comprising $1,472,199 in cash and 29,567,362 AmeriGas Partners Common Units with a fair value of $1,132,628 (the “Heritage Acquisition”). The Heritage Acquisition was consummated pursuant to a Contribution and Redemption Agreement dated October 15, 2011, as amended (the “Contribution Agreement”), by and among AmeriGas Partners, ETP, Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., the general partner of ETP, and Heritage ETC, L.P. For additional information on the Heritage Acquisition, see Note 4 to the Partnership’s 2012 Annual Financial Statements and Notes.

 

The following presents unaudited pro forma income statement and income per unit data as if the Heritage Acquisition had occurred on October 1, 2011:

 

The unaudited pro forma results of operations reflect Heritage Propane’s historical operating results after giving effect to adjustments directly attributable to the transaction that are expected to have a continuing effect. The unaudited pro forma consolidated results of operations are not necessarily indicative of the results that would have occurred had the Heritage Acquisition occurred on the date indicated nor are they necessarily indicative of future operating results.

 

AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited)

(Thousands of dollars, except per unit)

The Partnership’s goodwill and intangible assets comprise the following:

 

Amortization expense of intangible assets was $9,832 and $19,676 for the three and six months ended March 31, 2013 , respectively, and $8,410 and $10,636 for the three and six months ended March 31, 2012 , respectively. No amortization is included in cost of sales in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of March 31, 2013 , our expected aggregate amortization expense of intangible assets for the remainder of Fiscal 2013 and the next four fiscal years is as follows: remainder of Fiscal 2013 — $19,179 ; Fiscal 2014 — $37,554 ; Fiscal 2015 — $35,362 ; Fiscal 2016 — $34,190 ; Fiscal 2017 — $32,111 .

Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement and a management services agreement among HOLP GP, HOLP and the General Partner, the General Partner is entitled to reimbursement for all direct and indirect expenses incurred or payments it makes on our behalf. These costs, which totaled $150,705 and $99,815 for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and $290,502 and $190,556 for the six months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, include employee compensation and benefit expenses of employees of the General Partner and general and administrative expenses.

UGI provides certain financial and administrative services to the General Partner. UGI bills the General Partner monthly for all direct and indirect corporate expenses incurred in connection with providing these services and the General Partner is reimbursed by the Partnership for these expenses. The allocation of indirect UGI corporate expenses to the Partnership utilizes a weighted, three-component formula based on the relative percentage of the Partnership’s revenues, operating expenses and net assets employed to the total of such items for all UGI operating subsidiaries for which general and administrative services are provided. The General Partner believes that this allocation method is reasonable and equitable to the Partnership. Such corporate expenses totaled $6,864 and $3,110 during the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 , respectively, and $10,756 and $5,377 , during the six months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. In addition, UGI and certain of its subsidiaries provide office space, stop loss medical coverage and automobile liability insurance to the Partnership. The costs related to these items totaled $1,062 and $844 for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and $2,626 and $1,746 for the six months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012 , respectively.

From time to time, AmeriGas OLP purchases propane on an as needed basis from UGI Energy Services, Inc. (“Energy Services”). The prices for any such propane purchased are generally based on market price at the time of purchase. AmeriGas OLP purchased propane from Energy Services totaling $1,575 during the three and six months ended March 31, 2013. There were no purchases of propane by AmeriGas OLP from Energy Services during the three or six months ended March 31, 2012 .

In addition, the Partnership sells propane to affiliates of UGI. Such amounts were not material during the periods presented.

Environmental Matters

Saranac Lake. By letter dated March 6, 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) notified AmeriGas OLP that DEC had placed property owned by the Partnership in Saranac Lake, New York, on its Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. A site characterization study performed by DEC disclosed contamination related to former manufactured gas plant (“MGP”) operations on the site. DEC has classified the site as a significant threat to public

health or environment with further action required. The Partnership has researched the history of the site and its ownership interest in the site. The Partnership has reviewed the preliminary site characterization study prepared by the DEC, the extent of the contamination, and the possible existence of other potentially responsible parties. The Partnership communicated the results of its research to DEC in January 2009 and is awaiting a response before doing any additional investigation. Because of the preliminary nature of available environmental information, the ultimate amount of expected clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated.

Claremont, New Hampshire and Chestertown, Maryland. In connection with the Heritage Acquisition on January 12, 2012, a predecessor of Titan Propane, LLC (“Titan LLC”), a former subsidiary acquired in the Heritage Acquisition, is purportedly the beneficial holder of title with respect to two former MGPs discussed below. The Contribution Agreement provides for indemnification from ETP for certain expenses associated with remediation of these sites. By letter dated September 30, 2010, the EPA notified Titan LLC that it may be a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) for cleanup costs associated with contamination at a former MGP in Claremont, New Hampshire. In June 2010, the Maryland Attorney General (“MAG”) identified Titan LLC as a PRP in connection with contamination at a former MGP in Chestertown, Maryland and requested that Titan LLC participate in characterization and remediation activities. Titan LLC has supplied the EPA and MAG with corporate and bankruptcy information for its predecessors to support its claim that it is not liable for any remediation costs at the sites. Because of the preliminary nature of available environmental information, the ultimate amount of expected clean up costs cannot be reasonably estimated.

Other Matters

Cylinder Investigation. On or about October 21, 2009, the General Partner received a notice that the Offices of the District Attorneys of Santa Clara, Sonoma, Ventura, San Joaquin and Fresno Counties and the City Attorney of San Diego (the “District Attorneys”) have commenced an investigation into AmeriGas OLP’s cylinder labeling and filling practices in California as a result of the Partnership's decision in 2008 to reduce the volume of propane in cylinders it sells to consumers from 17 pounds to 15 pounds. At that time, the District Attorneys issued an administrative subpoena seeking documents and information relating to those practices. We have responded to the administrative subpoena. On or about July 20, 2011, the General Partner received a second subpoena from the District Attorneys. The subpoena sought additional information and documents regarding AmeriGas OLP’s cylinder exchange program and we responded to that subpoena. In connection with this matter, the District Attorneys have alleged potential violations of California’s antitrust laws, California's slack-fill law, and California's principal false advertising statute. We believe we have strong defenses to these allegations.

Federal Trade Commission Investigation of Propane Grill Cylinder Filling Practices. On or about November 4, 2011, the General Partner received notice that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is conducting an antitrust and consumer protection investigation into certain practices of the Partnership which relate to the filling of portable propane cylinders. On February 2, 2012, the Partnership received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC that requests documents and information concerning, among other things, (i) the Partnership’s decision, in 2008, to reduce the volume of propane in cylinders it sells to consumers from 17 pound to 15 pounds and (ii) cross-filling, related service arrangements and communications regarding the foregoing with competitors. The Partnership believes that it will have good defenses to any claims that may result from this investigation. We are not able to assess the financial impact this investigation or any related claims may have on the Partnership.

Purported Class Action Lawsuit. In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the “Swigers”) filed what purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters. In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related class action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal 2011. We believe we have good defenses to the claims in this action.

BP America Production Company v. Amerigas Propane, L.P. On July 15, 2011, BP America Production Company (“BP”) filed a complaint against AmeriGas OLP in the District Court of Denver County, Colorado, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing relating to amounts billed for certain goods and services provided to BP since 2005 (the “Services”). The Services relate to the installation of propane-fueled equipment and appliances, and the supply of propane, to approximately 400 residential customers at the request of and for the account of BP. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of direct, indirect, consequential, special and compensatory damages,

including attorneys’ fees, costs and interest and other appropriate relief. It also seeks an accounting to determine the amount of the alleged overcharges related to the Services. We have substantially completed our investigation of this matter and, based upon the results of that investigation, we believe we have good defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint and the amount of loss will not have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition. A trial date is currently scheduled for June 2013.

We cannot predict the final results of any of the environmental or other pending claims or legal actions described above. However, it is reasonably possible that some of them could be resolved unfavorably to us and result in losses in excess of recorded amounts. We are unable to estimate any possible losses in excess of recorded amounts. Although we currently believe, after consultation with counsel, that damages or settlements, if any, recovered by the plaintiffs in such claims or actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, damages or settlements could be material to our operating results or cash flows in future periods depending on the nature and timing of future developments with respect to these matters and the amounts of future operating results and cash flows. In addition to the matters described above, there are other pending claims and legal actions arising in the normal course of our businesses. We believe, after consultation with counsel, the final outcome of such other matters will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Derivative Financial Instruments

The following table presents our financial assets and financial liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis for each of the fair value hierarchy levels, including both current and noncurrent portions, as of March 31, 2013 ,  September 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012 :

 

AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(unaudited)

(Thousands of dollars, except per unit)